DiabloFans

Okay. I like your art by the way, Jetrall.

Errr... Thank you. That's kind of off topic though.

Please try to stick to the topic at hand, folks.

4 - Common Sense

I think the entire rules section should be labeled common sense. The only one that isn't based on common sense is the signature size limit.

Besides that little point, I think that whoever made these rules did an amazing job. I honestly never read the previous ones when I joined because they seemed so overwhelming. These are concise, straight to the point, and organized very well. I also like the Punishment section, gives people a wake-up call.

P.S. I like your signature and avatar.

So it's finally finished, this thing you guys have been hinting about for e t e r n i t y. Just kidding. I like the fact that it's all laid out in sections with reference coding- that makes it easier to quote and such.

Yes Magistrate, that is what it means.

Anyway, have to memorize this set of rules now. Id absolutely hate to break a rule.

Quote from "XXLaw" »

Soo... meaning I could have 2 sig's only if they both (together) took 150pix in height?

EDIT

Correct. In other words, one of those big guys needs to go.

Thanks for the new signature rule Now I can probably put them visible again.

Quote from "Krow" »

I honestly never read the previous ones when I joined because they seemed so overwhelming. These are concise, straight to the point, and organized very well.

Did we have rules back then? Oh wait maybe we did, it just wasn't in posted as an announcement if I remember right.

Quote from "Jetrall;371419 »

Quote from XXLaw" »

Soo... meaning I could have 2 sig's only if they both (together) took 150pix in height?

EDIT

Correct. In other words, one of those big guys needs to go.

Or, you could perhaps put them side by side.

This whole section is a scapegoat for butt-hurt mods/admins to silence particular debates and keep them from being held. (art-design anyone?)
Lame.

The art debate would and could still happen under the new rules. You just cannot post things like "new graphics = suxors. Screw you Blizzard. Anyone who likes the new art is gay and bums goats." And before you say anything, yes, someone actually said that. If someone wants to argue against something, say the new art direction they can, so long as they do it in a concise, logical, structured, informative meaningful and reasonable way. "Hate the game, not the player" Reducing people who think differently to you to "gay fags" is not needed.

And sadly that is what happened in a lot of threads where an arguement or debate was taking place. All that rule does is stop the flaming on the person. It doesn't stop you from voicing your oppinion on whether you like or dislike something.

Quote from Doppelganger »

This whole section is a scapegoat for butt-hurt mods/admins to silence particular debates and keep them from being held. (art-design anyone?)
Lame.

No, it isn't. What you're quoting there is exactly the issue we're trying to avoid. Those threads, every single one of them, degraded in to an opinion debate, and since no one could agree logically, flame ensued. And that flaming usually contained, in a far more vulgar and moronic way, something to the effect of "you don't agree with me that the art style should look like it did in the previous 2D games, so you're a WoW MMO prick" or "you don't agree with a change in art direction, so you're a noob". That's how every one of them degraded, and it's because they were never nipped in the bud. People would slide in little annoyances to the opposing side because they knew that to respond to them the opposing arguer would have to post off-topic. That's the kind of thing this would avoid, not well-intentioned, organized, burning arguing.

Yes, of course this rule could be misused by any moderator or administrator. They're human. If you were one, you would also have errors in judgment because you're not perfect. Any rule can be used for personal gain. It can also be used for what it's meant to be used as, in a way that is the most non-biased as humanly possible. In any case, that's why moderators and administrators are picked rarely and with scrutiny, so this kind of thing is minimized.

This isn't some kind of conspiracy.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

In what way is that not covered in the "flame" or "troll" section of the rules?
I completely fail to see what "arguing" has to do with any of the examples you gave.
You can't simply say that "oh, that kind of argument will lead to flames thus we'll just get rid of them" which is entirely within the interpretation of said "arguing" rule.
Anyways, if mods and admins truly are human, and they truly aren't perfect beings incapable of making mistakes, then its all the more important for rules to be correct, make sense, and be clear which this one fails at on all levels.

It's not civilized argumentation. That's what that rule is against. That's what I showed by example.

Doppel, let's take this argument. For simplicity's sake, let's say it's the classic art debate.

A:

"The art isn't dark enough, it doesn't fit the classic feel from the previous two games. I don't like it."

B:

"It's something different, and it's something new. It'll attract new people to the game series. I like it."

A:

"You don't know what you're talking about- it's like WoW rehashed, you probably never even played Diablo."

(Starts by degrading the opponent by assuming something that has no fact basis.)

B:

"I've been playing it for like 5 years, and I'm ready for a change. If you can't deal with it, gtfo."

(Assumes the opponent is incapable of maintaining a level of maturity.)

(Further elaborates by adding vulgar language, which has been proven to heighten, in all circumstances, arguments. No, I'm not saying I'm against cursing. I'm saying in this use it's bad.)

A:

"You're not even a fuckin Diablo fan, get the hell off this site bitch."

(Argument has gone now off-topic in addition to becoming not a civilized debate based on facts, but a raw-emotion, vulgar mess.)

B:

"You're prolly just a fuckin teenager with no friends. Get a fuckin life."

(The downward spiral continues, the raw argument over nothing but e-pride continues, the subject is off-topic, flame, trolling, etc.)


Honestly, in my opinion- opinion- this rule is pointless because I believe if the Troll and Flame rules are applied adequately, these situations shouldn't happen, anyway. The new Argument rule seems to me- in my opinion- to only be a reiteration of the two in one rule, which is not contradictory with any previous rules.

"leads to flaming" is the definition of trolling.

I think if the mod can tell that the conversation will soon turn to a mindless clusterfuck said mod should take it upon themselves to head it off at the pass. This relies on the perceptive prowess of the mods however. I believe that is doppels concern. Perhaps a mod qualification test, in which they are given a series of actions to choose from. Maybe 20 or so instances. Just a thought.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Not its not.

trolling: Which probably will lead to flaming, but thats irrelevant. (its not that because it will probably lead to flaming its therefor "trolling") Therefor "arguing" is not trolling because it might lead to flaming. (otherwise you might as well say anything can lead to flaming, therefor everything is trolling, which is of course an incorrect conclusion)

Lol, it's totally relevant. Why do you get to choose what is and is not relevant?

You took the statement to an extreme. Not everything, logically, will lead to flaming. For instance, let's take your quote there.

"Not its not."

That has no obvious negativity, so it wouldn't.

[The rest of your post]

Obviously condescending and overbearing, which could easily lead to flaming.

'Trolling' means 'posting with the intent of starting an argument'. Please see 1C for the distinction between argument and debate. If you are deliberately posting controversial viewpoints with the intent of riling up other members and / or goading them into fights in the main forum body, you will be punished.

I would have agreed with you for a second, Doppel, but they pinned the last part on there:

If you are deliberately posting controversial viewpoints with the intent of riling up other members and / or goading them into fights in the main forum body

So:

In an argument, people may resort to insults, personal attacks, and may abandon reason in exchange for violent emotions. Stick to debates.

Which is flame. So, by extension of logic:

Trolling -> Arguing -> Flame

So, either way, you're perpetuating flame no matter where you start in that tree. And, if you want to get rid of the "arguing" part, you're just cutting out a middle man, so to speak.

Quote from "Murderface" »

I think if the mod can tell that the conversation will soon turn to a mindless clusterfuck said mod should take it upon themselves to head it off at the pass. This relies on the perceptive prowess of the mods however. I believe that is doppels concern. Perhaps a mod qualification test, in which they are given a series of actions to choose from. Maybe 20 or so instances. Just a thought.

I don't think our mods require such a test.

Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »

Did we have rules back then? Oh wait maybe we did, it just wasn't in posted as an announcement if I remember right.

No, there were an announcement. I just replaced the old announcement with this one (which happens automatically whenever you post a new announcement).

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

Flaming is already covered under the section "flaming", i really don't see why to complicate the rules with vague "it leads to flaming" reasoning which is even completely faulty defined to begin with. (read the definitions of "arguing/argumentation, its not at all what Jetrall, or whoever made/defined those rules, wants to make you belief).

I am simply using the words 'argument' and 'debate' to separate out the two different concepts here. Yes, in reality the lines between the two are blurred. On this site, however, I am using argument to represent heated debate which includes flame and debate to mean civil disputes. The point of this rule is to essentially say debate is still allowed as long as it doesn't include flaming. I am not once again saying "flame is not allowed". I am saying "feel free to debate, as long as you don't break any of the other rules while doing so".

Make sense?

If you really want to be this disagreeable about a simple usage of semantics then we can do it via Personal Message. If you want to let it go and try to be a mature adult who is capable of reading just a little bit between the lines rather than being spoon-fed an explanation of my word choices, then by all means - please do.

Quote from "Equinox" »

I don't think our mods require such a test.

Me neither, but it may hone their skills. I'm not really complaining about anything, I'm just bored, sort of.

Quote from "Doppelganger" »

In what way is that not covered in the "flame" or "troll" section of the rules?
I completely fail to see what "arguing" has to do with any of the examples you gave.
You can't simply say that "oh, that kind of argument will lead to flames thus we'll just get rid of them" which is entirely within the interpretation of said "arguing" rule.
Anyways, if mods and admins truly are human, and they truly aren't perfect beings incapable of making mistakes, then its all the more important for rules to be correct, make sense, and be clear which this one fails at on all levels.

The rule exists to emphasize the difference between a healthy debate and one which is just flaming. It signifies that debating is not against the rules, and that disagreement is not forbidden so long as you adhere to the flaming rule.

I do not see how this rule allows us to silence arguments because we don't like them. The last line,"Arguing leads to flaming, which is not allowed, so don't do it.", simply says that flaming is not allowed, and that we advise against it.

I think the main messare of the arguing section needs to remain in the rules, but perhaps it should be reworded and/or moved within the rules.

Quote from "Jetrall" »

No, there were an announcement. I just replaced the old announcement with this one (which happens automatically whenever you post a new announcement).

I was talking about way back, 2007 and before.

These rules are fair, I replaced my old giant sig with a new one w/ my favorite character in all the games